Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Wang's claim that humans feel concern and regret when seeing tiles and stones broken is questionable.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Wang needs this reaction as evidence that our minds are 'one Substance' with everything in the universe, not merely with living or sentient things.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is not obvious that everyone manifests even sporadic concern for tiles and stones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Empirical cross-cultural studies on moral psychology (Haidt, 2012) show humans exhibit measurable negative affect toward destruction of non-sentient objects, including artifacts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Wang's claim does not require universal constant concern, only that such responses are genuinely possible for humans, revealing an underlying ontological unity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A dispositional reading—concern is latent and contextually triggered, not perpetually active—makes Wang's position immune to counterexamples from indifferent observers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Heidegger's analysis of 'care' (Sorge) in Being and Time demonstrates that humans are constitutively oriented toward the world of objects, not merely toward persons or animals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If ontological attunement to non-living things is a structural feature of human existence, Wang's claim describes a real phenomenological capacity, not an anomalous sentiment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The phenomenological tradition thus provides independent philosophical grounds for taking seriously human affective responsiveness to inanimate breakage or destruction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.